Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Australian government effort to nip toxic masculinity in the bud.

I cannot even imagine how they might do that. Talk is cheap and kids are already preached at from dawn to dusk. To change behaviour you have to change the needs that drive it and that will rarely be possible.

Andrew Tate is a symptom, not a cause. Disrespect for women comes naturally to meny men and feminist preaching will only magnify that. Being constantly told that women are so much more admirable and worthy than men will usually provoke defiance and an attitude opposite to that desired.

The one faint hope of change would be to replace the currently pervasive valorization of women with a much more balanced message but that is not going to happen. The idea that men too have problems seems to stick in the throats of feminists

Even a heavy legal assault on domestic violence would achieve little. Bashing women is clearly something impulsive and done out of anger -- and laws are unlikely to restrain that.

The only preaching that might help would be to stop mindless praise of women and demonization of men and replace it with lessons about the needs that the respective sexes have. At its simplest, both sexes could be told that men have needs for adventure and women have a need for security. Men often say that they don't understand women at all but explanations of what drives female behaviour are posible and could be widely deployed.

I long ago wrote an explanation of female behaviour -- unlikely though that may seem. I have four women calling on me regularly these days despite my frail old age so maybe I do know something. My explanation below:


To end violence against women and children, the federal government aims to reshape young male attitudes toward healthy, respectful relationships as “extremist influencers” like Andrew Tate influence minds.

The initiative, known as the “Healthy Masculinities Project,” is poised to launch next year as a three-year trial, supported by $3.5 million in funding.

This innovative project will tackle the insidious impact of social media messaging targeting young men and boys, with the primary aim of eradicating gender stereotypes perpetuated online and promoting a culture of respect and supportive relationships among peers.

The project will engage the target school-age male audience through face-to-face interactions at sporting clubs, community organisations, and on social media.

Recent research has revealed 25 per cent of teenage boys in Australia look up to social media personalities who propagate harmful gender stereotypes and endorse violence against women.

The government has channelled funding through the First Action Plan Priorities Fund, an $11.9 million fund which is part of the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-32.

Minister for Social Services Amanda Rishworth said there is a need for young men to develop supportive relationships with their male peers and marked the project as a critical first step towards fostering healthy male attitudes.

Ms Rishworth cited the links between harmful forms of masculinity and the perpetration of violence against women.

“Research shows there are strong links between harmful forms of masculinity and the perpetration of violence against women,” she said.

“Educating boys about healthy masculinity and providing them with positive role models are important steps to ending cycles of violence.”

The grant round for this trial will open its doors in early 2024 and will offer an opportunity for organisations equipped with specialist expertise to sign on.

Ms Rishworth emphasised the necessity of addressing violent behaviour at its roots.

Andrew Tate is a controversial kickboxer and reality TV star turned content creator who has amassed billions of views among tens of millions of followers despite being de-platformed by most social media platforms.

He has been known to preach troubling views regarding women, including that rape victims “must bear some responsibility” for their attacks; or that women should be choked by their male partners and stopped from going out.

But Mr Tate, who often flaunts his lavish life, is seen by many young men as an authority on what it is to be successful.

In August, he was released from house arrest in Romania and placed under judicial control, a lighter restrictive measure, while he awaits trial on charges of human trafficking.

As National Director of White Ribbon Australia, Allan Ball, previously explained to news.com.au, “the use of gaming, extreme bravado and music [in the videos of Tate] overlays his deplorable actions with a filter of normalcy”.

“Impressionable young minds are drawn in by money, power and unwavering confidence to become part of a tribe,” he said.

Mr Tate created the Real World Portal in recent months, after closing his subscription-based “Hustler’s University”, an online academy for his fans, promising to assist them in making big money while helping his videos on social media go viral.

Real World, which bills itself as an anti-university, promises members will make over $10k a month online.

A joint statement from Dr Stephanie Wescott and Professor Steven Roberts, two leading experts in the education field from Monash University, broadly welcomed the government’s initiative while highlighting the hazardous influence of misogynistic influencers like Mr Tate on impressionable boys and young men.

The pair are currently conducting research on the impact of Mr Tate’s content on boys in Australian schools, and have already revealed its far-reaching consequences on girls and women in classrooms across the country.

The research further highlighted that boys consuming Mr Tate’s content were more likely to harbour unhealthy views on relationships — an alarming finding given the high rates of family violence in Australia.

Dr Wescott and Prof Roberts raised a critical concern about the potential pitfalls of implementing short-term, “quick-fix” programs and interventions that might lack the capacity for sustained engagement with young men.

They cited mixed evidence regarding the effectiveness of such approaches and emphasised the absence of a uniform strategy for evaluating their impact.

The experts recommended long-term, direct, and targeted initiatives that challenge detrimental social norms affecting boys’ mental health and emotions while adopting a “gender-transformative” approach based on best practices.

“We also challenge the assumption that boys need only to hear from other men about how to develop positive masculinity, and note that the inclusion of only male role models in healthy masculinity programs are not backed by robust evidence,” they wrote.

They argued boys benefit from interacting with individuals of diverse gender identities at all life stages.

The experts warned that featuring only male role models may reinforce negative aspects of healthy masculinity programs.

“The reasons boys and young men find extremist influencers like Andrew Tate appealing are complex and multifaceted, and so must be the approaches we use to address them,” they said.

The pair urged the federal government and the Minister for Social Services to consult widely with experts in the field and lean on established research.


I'm American and I am so obsessed with Australian Weet-Bix I get it shipped to me: 'Why did no one tell me about it? It's like crack'

I am also a Weetbix tragic -- JR

image from https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/10/30/23/77194439-0-image-a-9_1698707448145.jpg

An American man has revealed that he's so 'obsessed' with a classic Australian breakfast food that he gets cartons shipped to him in the US.

The 24-year-old could no longer stand how much sugar was in American cereal and decided to try Weet-Bix on a whim - a decision that changed his life forever.

He shared that he has six bars of the whole-grain wheat cereal dissolved in milk and strawberry protein powder every morning, sometimes switching it up with the addition of Biscoff biscuits crumbled in.

'As an American, why did no one ever tell me about Weet-Bix?' he asked online. 'This sh*t is like crack and I love it. All American cereal is sugar, sugar, sugar, and Weet-Bix takes on whatever flavour I want and it gets mushy so easy.'

He added, 'Thank you for my new favourite breakfast. I've had Weet-Bix a few different ways but can't wait to try all the ways Australians eat it.'

Other foreigners have been similarly taken aback when tasting Australian food for the first time.

DJ duo Xavier Di Petta and Nick Iavarone, popularly known together as 'Party Shirt', recently took their first trip to a Bunnings Warehouse sausage sizzle while on tour Down Under.

The Australian staple snack typically consists of a sausage between a bun or white bread, with fried onion and sauce drizzled on top.'

Nick doused his sausage in tomato sauce and mustard and took a generous bite for his first impression.

The musician spent a few seconds processing before blurting out: 'F**k yeah!'

American travellers were also wowed by Australia's iconic coffee.

Australian Olympic water polo player Tilly Kearns said that she'd told her American boyfriend Justin Dedich that Australian coffee was 'much better' than what's served in the US, but he 'didn't believe her'.

After touching down in Sydney for a week, the US-based athlete decided to take Justin to try a cappuccino.

In a video, Justin stirs the velvety coffee before smelling it and taking a sip and giving his verdict. 'It's good s*** Matilda, it's good s***,' he said.


‘Pure hate’: Jewish academics quit National Tertiary Education Union

A growing number of Jewish academics are quitting Australia’s major tertiary education union in protest at the union’s anti-Israel stance, while dozens of others have demanded the union withdraw what they describe as anti-Semitic statements.

In a resignation letter to the National Tertiary Education Union, one member wrote: ‘This decision by the union is unacceptable and shameful. It is a pure hate against Israelis and Jews. I am immediately withdrawing my membership from this anti-­Semitic union.”

In a separate letter to the union sent on Tuesday, 18 Jewish academics from all of Australia’s major universities told the NTEU that it will “lose any moral authority” to speak on human rights if it does not address the crimes of Hamas.

The signatories, one of whom was lawyer and Canberra University professor Kim Rubenstein, pointed out that some individuals they had contacted to sign the letter explained they had already resigned their longstanding memberships of the NTEU “due to feeling disenfranchised by the NTEU’s position over the years on Israel and Palestine”.

Professor Rubenstein told The Australian she had not yet resigned from the union because it did valuable work in its core function, “but that’s an option for me going forward if I feel this is something that’s not resolvable”.

Last week, Sydney University academic Fiona Gill, a senior lecturer in social sciences, quit as branch secretary of the union because of its “refusal to publicly condemn war crimes”, understood to be a reference to the Hamas ­attack of 7 October.

“The seeping of external political factionalism and arguments into the branch has resulted in an increasingly dysfunctional, divided and conflictual environment which is detrimental to the achievement of the base goals of our union,” Dr Gill wrote in her resignation letter.

Dr Gill’s resignation came as the union’s Sydney University branch president Nick Riemer promoted anti-Israel material on X and condemned “our gutless political ‘leaders’ cowering behind Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’”.

Dr Riemer, a linguistics academic, is a leading member of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to isolate Israel who has been active in recent pro-Palestinian protests in Sydney.

The signatories to Tuesday’s letter expressed dismay that the union leadership was advocating members attend protests that were “likely to agree with only one group of members’ perceptions and views (especially with chants of ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea’ – ie, the destruction of Israel”.

They asked that any further statements by the union should unequivocally condemn the massacre of civilians within Israel by Hamas. The signatories expressed their desire to meet NTEU national president Alison Barnes and ACT secretary Lachlan Clohesy via Zoom to discuss the issue, but Mr Clohesy wrote back saying Dr Barnes was at an overseas conference “and will not be available until 9 November 2023 – at that point, I will be able to discuss your letter with Alison”. Mr Clohesy did not respond to questions from The Australian about why Dr Barnes was unavailable for two weeks to discuss the issue.

A spokesman for the NTEU referred The Australian to the union’s official statement but declined to answer questions, including how many members had resigned over the union’s stance.

The Australian understands that at least four members of the Victoria University branch of the NTEU alone resigned from the union after it passed a motion expressing “unwavering solidarity with Palestine and … an immediate end to occupation and apartheid”. The same motion was passed by the RMIT and La Trobe NTEU branches. The union had also urged members to attend a Rally for Palestine event.

One Jewish academic wrote to the union submitting his resignation, saying: “A targeted murder of over 1000 civilians, the beheading of babies, the killing of babies, children, women, men and older people is terrorism, it is not fighting for freedom.”


Do Covid vaccines meet the definition of gene therapy?

It seems like a lifetime ago that an enjoyable night in consisted of the couch, popcorn, and a feel-good movie. Not anymore. With the hotbed of post-pandemic questions filtering through Australia’s Parliament, I’ve discovered riveting viewing can be found in an evening of ‘Senate-estimates-live’ if you get the right participants. Nothing quite matches the drama and real-time manoeuvering between our elected representatives and the bureaucrats. The only comparable analogy is that of a high-level game of chess … with higher stakes.

We had such a night recently. The scheduled appearance of AHPRA, the TGA, and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), joined by Senators Rennick and Roberts promised to be popcorn-worthy viewing. And it was.

Five minutes before the closing of the session at 11 pm, the final question was handed to Senator Rennick. I was wakened from my somnolence as the Senator asked, ‘Have we got the Gene Technology Regulator here?’

The following conversation may well be the biggest bombshell drop in the Covid vaccine drama so far.

In the absence of the pending HANSARD transcript (ref. 27445), the conversation goes like this:

Senator Rennick: ‘I have a Pfizer document here from their own website. It says, “Gene therapies are delicate, intentional processes encapsulating the desired gene. Manufacturing gene therapies is challenging and it requires certain steps including transfection.” That is on Pfizer’s own website.

‘Then I had also from the website of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy “because the vaccine (it’s referring to the Covid mRNA vaccine) introduces new genetic material into cells for a short period of time to induce antibodies, it is a gene therapy” as defined by the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy.

‘And then the TGA [in] its own Pfizer nonclinical report page 19 says the proposed commercial scale manufacturing process includes use of linearized plasmid DNA template for mRNA production. So, we’ve now got Pfizer themselves who admit that the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy admits the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy, and we’ve got the TGA themselves admit the DNA was used in the manufacturing process. Why wasn’t the actual mRNA vaccine tested for genotoxicity and why didn’t the (OGTR) look at it in terms of Gene Technology?’

Dr Raj Bula (Office of the Gene Technology Regulator):

‘Thank you for your question, Senator. I think the first part about the genotoxicity that question has been asked before. Because the Therapeutic Goods Administration was the approving authority for the vaccine products, that is a question for TGA on GMO toxicity.

‘In relation to your question around manufacturing, I think it’s useful to put a bit of context around that in that the committee is aware the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines were fully formulated and imported into Australia, which meant that there was actually no manufacture of the mRNA or the vaccine product itself here in Australia. If indeed the mRNA was being manufactured here, and it’s correct, that gene technology was used in the modification of the mRNA then under the Gene Technology Act an approval would have been required for that manufacturing step.’

Senator Rennick: ‘That contradicts what you’ve said previously. You’ve said previously gene therapy and gene technology wasn’t used. Now you’re saying because it was produced in another country, that you’re not responsible for checking the gene therapy.’

Dr Bhula: ‘So, the Gene Technology Act, it doesn’t reach into manufacturing in other countries.’

Senator Rennick: ‘But it still involves transfection here. It transfects cells of Australian citizens.’

Dr Bhula: ‘I disagree with that.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Well, that’s what Pfizer say. Even they admit transfection, is a part of gene therapy.’

Dr Bhula: ‘No senator.’

Senator Rennick: ‘So you’re disagreeing with Pfizer, the people who actually made the vaccine that transfection isn’t a part of gene therapy.’

Chair: ‘I think she’s disagreeing with you at the moment.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Well, it’s not my words. I’ll just read out what Pfizer said.’

Gallagher: ‘Welcome to my world.’

Dr Bhula: ‘I think it comes down to a definition of what is a gene therapy.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Yep, that’s right. And I’m relying on the manufacturer.’

This little exchange at the eleventh hour of Senate estimates had me wide-eyed and jaw dropped.

In my view, the OGTR has undermined their answers to Senator Rennick in Feb 2023 (as follows):

Senator Rennick: ‘Under section 30C of the Therapeutic Goods Act, the secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Health must seek advice from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator on the safety and efficiency of any product that uses GMO as defined by the Gene Technology Act. Do you have evidence of where the secretary has written to you asking for advice on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines?’

Dr Bhula: ‘Thank you for your question, Senator. Where the particular vaccine involves a GMO, there’s a reciprocal arrangement, if you like, for OGTR to seek advice from the TGA in terms of a risk assessment around that GM vaccine and vice versa. The TGA may also request advice from the OGTR.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Do you have documentation of that?’

Dr Bhula: ‘For GM vaccines, yes.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Where they’ve written to you for the Pfizer one?’

Dr Bhula: ‘No, because the mRNA vaccines are not required to be regulated through the OGTR.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Did they write to you and actually ask you that question?’

Dr Bhula: ‘No, because they’re not required to be regulated through the OGTR.’

Senator Rennick: ‘But how would they know, because you’re the expert? And, by the way, gene technology involves both replication and transcription.’

Dr Bhula: ‘Yes.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Which is what the mRNA vaccine does.’

Dr Bhula: ‘But the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines did not involve any step of genetic modification…’

Senator Rennick: ‘They produce proteins.’

Dr Bhula: ‘Or a GMO…’

Chair: ‘Senator Rennick, would you allow Dr Bhula to finish her answers?’

Dr Bhula: ‘Which meant that that didn’t require regulatory oversight by the OGTR.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Well, I dispute that. Look up gene technology. But, anyway, thank you.’

In February 2023, the OGTR asserted that there was no documentation between the TGA and the OGTR regarding the mRNA vaccines. They say the mRNA vaccines were not required to be regulated through the OGTR because they did not involve a GMO or any step of genetic modification.

However, in October 2023, the OGTR says they don’t have oversight because the Gene Technology Act doesn’t reach into manufacturing in other countries and the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines were fully formulated outside of Australia.

Please bear with me while I explain the significance of this moment.

Senator Rennick has tabled several documents from Pfizer, the TGA, and the American Society of Cell and Gene Therapy confirming that Covid-19 mRNA injections are indeed gene therapy products involving genetic modification during manufacture.

Importantly the OGTR concedes that if what Senator Rennick is saying is true, then the mRNA injections are GM products and should be regulated by the OGTR if they were manufactured in Australia, but they do not have oversight because the Covid-19 mRNA injections were manufactured overseas.

Here’s where it gets interesting.

The Gene Technology Act 2000 requires that such gene technology products fall under the regulation of the OGTR as soon as they hit Australian shores, with GMO ‘dealings’ including manufacture, import, transport, and disposal. The OGTR’s response to Senator Rennick last week that the mRNA products were not regulated by them because they were manufactured outside of Australia appears to contradict what is written in the Gene Technology Act.

There’s something else. Let’s look at the concept of ‘manufacture’. Both the mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna) and viral vector (AZ) Covid-19 injections are pro-drugs, meaning they tell the body to ‘manufacture’ the final product. In this case, this final product is the spike protein. This means the final manufacturing step does indeed happen on Australian soil, in the bodies of injected Australians.

An (anonymous) Australian professor of science and medicine explains it this way:

‘…the concept of “manufacture” here is an interesting one as with the mRNA and also the adenoviral vector vaccines the final act of “manufacture” occurs in the body into which these products are injected.

‘This is because they are designed to induce the manufacture of spike protein production in vivo [in the human body] (the manufacture) as their final step. Without this final manufacturing step, they don’t work.

‘So, in effect when the products are injected into a human body in Australia, then the final act of genetic manufacture does indeed occur in Australia.

‘What the OGTR are proposing is thereby a nonsense. If they are redefining the Act in this way then it means we can create all manner of new genetic organisms and providing we do this in vivo (in living organisms) then it is now outside the purview of the OGTR – how wonderful – the virology community will be ecstatic that they can now do these things in vivo without going to the OGTR.’

‘So what?’ you may say.

Well this, dear reader, brings us to seriousness of the issue. A legal case filed in Australia’s Federal Court claims the Pfizer and Moderna products always met Australian legal definitions for being deemed genetically modified organisms and should therefore have obtained GMO licenses from the OGTR. They did not.

What, you may ask, is the penalty for dealing in GMOs without a license? You can read more about that here.

Even more serious is what this potentially means for the millions of Australians who were assured the mRNA vaccines were not gene therapy, making fully informed consent null and void. Not to mention their health in this ‘world’s largest experiment’.

One thing is certain, this isn’t the last we have heard about the OGTR.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs


Monday, October 30, 2023

Is Australian multiculturalism failing?

The events described below are real but isolated. They do not well reflect everyday life in Australia. Let me tell another story: Most days I have my breakfast in a local suburban cafe that has a very good menu. And it is very popular and busy.

But as I sit there day after day I observe a minor miracle. There are usually only one or two other people with my Celtic coloring (freckles!) but everybody behaves in a manner that I see as proper. There are always some Chinese, some Indians and probably some people from Europe. The cafe was formerly run by an Italian and is now run by a Vietnaese. Both were superb managers

And there are no raised voices and no aggression of any sort. Everybody there remains polite at all times. I have not once seen an exception to that. There are even some apparent Middle-Easterners of probably Muslim persuasion who make no waves at all. They usually keep in their own groups but no harm comes of that.

So every day I sit in the middle of a very multicultural population and experience nothing that disturbs my Old Australian soul. I have no doubt that in Australia I live in a brilliantly successful multicultural society

In March 2022, Declan Cutler, a working-class 16-year-old, died after being stabbed over 50 times by a ‘gang of teenagers’ in a random attack in North Melbourne.

Hours after the incident, one of the attackers allegedly went home and searched the question, ‘Is hell guaranteed for a Muslim who commits murder?’

Earlier this year, Jason Langhans, 17, was killed when he tried to stop a fight between gatecrashers and partygoers at a get-together in the small coastal town of Tooradin.

The attacker, a 17-year-old Afghan who has not been named, moved to Australia as a refugee, drove a screwdriver 8cm into Jason’s brain. The judge noted that he had a ‘traumatic upbringing’, leaving Afghanistan for Pakistan, Indonesia, and then Australia by boat.

Earlier this month, hundreds of protesters gathered at the Sydney Opera House and called for the death of an entire race of people … the Jewish people.

Minister for Immigration Andrew Giles says that Australia’s multicultural diversity is ‘a source of national strength’.

But these increasingly common events, along with a changing conversation abroad, might give us pause to reflect.

Suella Braverman, Home Secretary for the United Kingdom, recently stood in front of a crowd last month and announced that ‘multiculturalism in Great Britain had failed’.

Her analysis of Britain’s handling of immigration and diversity was scathing, and perfectly reflected the way the debate around multiculturalism is changing.

‘Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few decades.

‘We are living with the consequence of that failure today. You can see it play out on the streets of cities all over Europe. From Malmo, to Paris, Brussels, to Leicester. It is 13 years since Merkel gave her speech, and I’m not sure that very much has changed since.’

Australia’s official policy of ‘Multiculturalism’ is celebrated in ministerial white papers and corporate boardrooms but its real-life consequences are starkly different.

In the streets of Melbourne’s CBD earlier this year, Sikh separatists attacked Hindu protesters with sticks while chanting ‘death to India’.

In Sydney, Hindu protesters were filmed allegedly menacing Muslim-run businesses in Harris Park, an area with a long history of ethnic-religious violence.

In Brisbane, during the Hong Kong independence protests at the University of Queensland, students were physically assaulted by a number of pro-Chinese students.

Fireworks and celebrations erupted in the Sydney suburb of Lakemba following the attack of Israel by Hamas.

The question has to be asked: How is the average Australian benefiting from this? And if we’re not benefiting, what are we doing to stop it?

Because as one British writer put it, the eruption of ethnic tensions in our cities doesn’t just reflect the complete failure of integration, it also reflects a complete repudiation of our systems, laws and way of life.

‘When you watch people have so little respect for British values and British laws they gleefully saunter around Britain’s streets saluting atrocities committed by ISIS-style terrorists then you know multiculturalism is failing.’

This has happened, he says, ‘Because of mass immigration into Britain, because of the total failure of our politicians to integrate old and new immigrants into British society, and because of their determination to continue to import more culturally and religiously distinctive migrants and tribal grievances from abroad.’

It isn’t just Britain changing their tune on multiculturalism.

Last year, the Sweden Prime Minister announced: ‘Integration has been too poor at the same time as we have had a large immigration. Society has been too weak, resources for the police and social services have been too weak.’

More than Sweden, the other paragon of Scandinavian progressive pragmatism, Denmark, instituted an abrupt turnaround on its previously generous immigration program, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen citing a multi-decade failure of its newcomers to integrate.

And just weeks ago, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview that ‘it was a grave mistake to let in so many people of totally different cultures, religions, and concepts’.

‘It creates a pressure group inside each country.’

Is it now time to admit that Australia also made a ‘grave mistake’? Do we have pressure groups inside our country, and if so, what are we going to do about it?

‘I think we are starting to realise there’s a difference between being an Australian and living in Australia,’ wrote one person in a viral tweet, following the Opera House incident.

Australian politicians like to claim we’re the ‘most successful multicultural nation on Earth’, but how much longer can they ignore the fraying edges that has become increasingly evident this month?

Opposition leader Peter Dutton is talking tough on the issue, saying that anyone on a visa at the protests who was breaking the law ‘should be deported’. But what of the hundreds of thousands of new arrivals coming in next year? What of the gangs roaming our streets, killing unsuspecting teenagers? There is simply no plan to deal with these multicultural clashes – governments are just throwing a Hail Mary and hoping it doesn’t explode on their watch.

With a record 450,000 migrants arriving in Australia this year alone – many of which not only from nations with which we share little culturally, but who are also adversaries to our allies – it can be assumed Labor isn’t heeding Braverman’s warning about ‘uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism’.

Moreover, with Australia’s legitimacy increasingly attacked by the political left, and with the country referred to as a ‘coloniser state’ that disenfranchised indigenous people, it’s hard to see what the large numbers of people coming here will integrate into.

Our country is heading down a strange path. The roots that once held us together are increasingly weakened, while the rapidly rising number of people coming from other countries have no dominant culture or way of life to integrate into.

Until a stronger discussion is had around multiculturalism and immigration, these cultures will inevitably clash again, with increasingly tragic circumstances.


Crime is the issue that will decide the 2024 Qld election

Politicians trapped inside the George Street bubble often struggle to comprehend the issues facing Queenslanders, but right now there is no doubt.

Integrity, health, housing and financial management have been issues plaguing the Palaszczuk government these past three years.

Yet the single issue cutting through the most and striking fear into Queenslanders – and by default marginal seat Labor MPs – is crime.

It is the issue permeating the community and each person affected is likely to share their harrowing tale with a dozen others.

It leads to, as this poll clearly reveals, people barricading their homes – fuelled by a perception the tools and resources of the honourable Queensland Police Service are not enough to keep them safe.

It is a nightmare for the government.

Grainy CCTV images of knife-wielding intruders are striking fear into residents and building an entrenched perception Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has no answers on the ‘crime crises’.

In Townsville – a crime hotbed – three Labor MPs are at risk of being booted out.

Ms Palaszczuk will visit the regional city on Sunday when, despite hand-picking people to meet with – the community could show up unannounced to offer a piece of their collective mind.

That would be the first real indication of whether the LNP is on track to win the three seats, a must if it is to form government in 2024.

While the opposition has successfully prosecuted problems in the health system, not all Queenslanders will visit a hospital in the next 12 months – and those who do are likely to have an overwhelmingly positive experience thanks to the people that work in them.

Not all Queenslanders will be affected by crime either, but it’s likely they’ll know someone who has.

Politics is perception and the perception is the government has lost control.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/analysis-crime-is-the-issue-that-will-decide-the-2024-qld-election/news-story/d1ee520a94c49140968e0ee402d1a4e5 ?


We need an audit of Aboriginal spending

Australians are being ripped off, and they know it. The stench of bureaucratic waste has been seeping out of Canberra like the acrid smoke from the Sistine Chapel upon the failed election of a pope. Fitting, because Canberra is a leaderless quagmire of squabbling factions seething against each other, mesmerised by the shine of public money.

While we may not clad our political palaces in gold, as the Saudis do, the obscenity of waste is such that we may as well. At least it would make the halls of power nicer to look at instead of the prison-esque corridors of Parliament House.

Senator Jacinta Price, the leader of the conservative movement in spirit if not name, was right to call for an audit of the Indigenous activist industry that somehow manages to vanish $40 billion a year in state and federal funding.

Her request was particularly dangerous. Price struck at the heart of the powerful Indigenous land councils who have been using race to acquire public land for personal profit. What they do with the rest is anyone’s guess. The Senator wanted to assess their ‘effectiveness, efficiency, and credibility’, which sounds pedestrian but the sacred ground upon which she walks is well-defended.

Anthony Albanese’s indulgent referendum was based upon a valid point, albeit not the one he intended. Government and its bureaucratic arms have failed to ‘close the gap’ in remote communities. If anything, the gap has widened to a chasm under their watch. The public are cross about the Prime Minister’s wasted $400 million on the referendum, but what they really want to know is where those tens of billions go each year.

It’s a financial crisis. Working-class and middle-class families are suffering. Why should they continue handing over nearly half their salary into the black hole of Canberra? No one is getting roads, or dams, or cheap energy… Every year Australia gets poorer while politicians fudge the numbers on Budget sheets by importing 500,000 mouths to feed against the wishes of citizens. Australians are being squished into a collapsing nation and bled-out by greedy politicians.

To call Price’s interest in an audit a political stunt and ‘personal vendetta’ against land councils is, at best, unreasonable. Labor Federal Member Lingiari Marion Scrymgour said that Price has a ‘responsibility as the Shadow Spokesperson for Indigenous Australians to talk to everyone’ and to ‘try and look at a pathway forward’ rather than a ‘political stunt that she’s done three times into the Senate to get a review into land councils’.

Since when was transparency and accountability considered a ‘political stunt’?

Labor, by the actions of their Prime Minister, has admitted that the existing structure has failed Indigenous people. It certainly hasn’t come up short because of lacklustre funding. As Price replied, ‘What do they [the land councils] have to hide?’

One might guess a few billion dollars, perhaps?

The squirrelling that has gone on since Price’s call resembles a leech recoiling from a light dusting of salt.

How much does it cost to look after a handful of remote communities that require basic services, none of which are particularly expensive to create? Surely the 2022-23 budget of $4.5 billion to the National Indigenous Australians Agency should have gone a long way to achieving this task? A hundred years ago, church groups and private charities did a better job with blackboards and bits of scrap metal.

You could build entire towns from scratch with the billions on offer – if you spent it wisely.

‘We’re going to do what we haven’t done yet. We’re going to find out where the billions of dollars are being spent. We are going to say, “Right, who else is accountable for this?” We know that governments have, you know, made mistakes in the past, absolutely. On both sides… We’ve got to do things better,’ said Price.

She is going to have a fight on her hands. The bureaucracy might seem sluggish in its mission to ‘close the gap’, but it will be nimble and ruthless in its efforts to protect the public money tree that feeds its idle hands.

Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine saved Australia from the Voice to Parliament – but they are going to need the full attention of the Coalition, federal and state, to unpick the waste from the activist community. No more, what did former Prime Minister John Howard call it? Pussy-footing around…

This is an election-winning cause. The numbers don’t lie.

Nothing irritates voters more than activists dripping in diamonds crying poor with their begging bowls out. It was sickening to watch the ‘Yes’ campaign haul Indigenous children in front of the camera and pretend they didn’t ‘have a future’ unless a new bureaucracy was installed. The shame belongs to the activist class and their decades of failure, self-interest, and waste – not to the hardworking citizens minding their own business and paying their taxes without complaint.

Jacinta Price as Minister for Indigenous Affairs would scare the hell out of land councils, but as Prime Minister she would gut the Labor Party from the inner-city seats to the Outback electorates. A voice with a unifying message rather than a carefully curated package of superficial identities.

She is not alone in her demands for transparency. As this publication’s Editor-in-Chief Rowan Dean said on his Sunday show, Outsiders, ‘Where has the money gone that has funded billions and billions of dollars in Indigenous welfare…? Where has the money gone? We need a full audit – down to every cent into every pocket. They are now saying that ‘the ‘No’ vote didn’t mean people had said no to treaties etc’… Sorry. The ‘No’ vote meant exactly that. It meant no to treaties. It meant no to welcome to country. It meant no to acknowledgements. It meant no to bits of burning bark around football stadiums. It was a ‘No’. A comprehensive, one-word ‘No’. And anyone who kids themselves into thinking that Australians ‘still want the treaty – they just didn’t want the Voice’ – rack off!’

The are thousands of examples of bureaucratic waste and failure, but last week the Albanese government – the government that is apparently prepared to offer up a blank cheque to the Voice – killed off plans to build two boarding schools in remote areas. They were intended to give Indigenous children a chance to live safely while receiving an education. It’s the kind of investment that makes a tangible difference to the lives of kids and the success of the next generation.

These boarding houses were a $74.9 million project fully-costed by the Coalition – already a generous and extraordinary amount of money for three boarding houses and an upgrade to a fourth. Labor has decided that two of these are not worth building. One, ironically, was situated near Albanese’s highly-publicised attendance at the Garma festival.

Apparently, Albanese had $400 million to burn on a referendum, but is now unable to justify the loose change needed to build a couple of schools for Indigenous kids.

And Labor wonders why Jacinta Price is calling for an audit.

The Labor government and its activist class are hypocrites, prepared to spend anything to enshrine power for themselves while refusing to tighten their belts for the kids. Disadvantaged Indigenous children have lost their value for Labor. They don’t need their pleading eyes for campaign posters or sadistic ad campaigns.

Giving kids the opportunity to go to school means closing the gap. When the gap is closed, we won’t need to spend $40 billion a year. The activist bureaucracy is hardly going to put itself out of business for the sake of Australia’s children and they certainly aren’t going to allow the taxpayer a peek at the books.

And hey, if Albo really is strapped for cash, maybe he can raid the $25 billion set aside for ‘green energy’?

It’s not like we’re gold-plating the pockets of foreign, multi-billion-dollar companies instead of building schools in the Outback.


Farmers' president fires parting shot at Labor policies

The outgoing president of the National Farmers' Federation has taken a swipe at key federal government policies impacting agriculture during her final week in the job.

"History will not judge this government kindly if it continues to prosecute an agenda focused more on satisfying factions than facts," Fiona Simson told the National Press Club in Canberra.

While Ms Simson focused largely on the achievements of the federation during her seven-year tenure, she also highlighted the government's proposed ban on live sheep exports and the Murray Darling water buybacks as two key problem policies for farmers.

She said the proposed ban would be "a disaster for animal welfare, our ties in the Middle East and farmers across Australia".

Ms Simson, the first woman to lead the federation, said there were a wide range of policies across multiple portfolios that had the potential to impact agriculture.

"There are decisions being made on issues and on policies that could change the face of farming as we know it."

Areas where the government was failing farmers in Australia seemed to be part of "a broader epidemic that is raging worldwide".

She said policies such as restrictions on fertiliser use in the Netherlands, Sweden and Canada, and methane taxes in New Zealand, would push costs higher for consumers.

Ms Simson used her address to highlight agriculture's contribution to sustainability, including the sector's ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
"We're entering the climate transition with our eyes wide open," she said.

"We're alive to the threats such as the impact of a changing climate, or poor planning of renewables, transmission infrastructure and carbon offsets on agricultural land."

Ms Simson said while producers were in favour of renewable energy it shouldn't be at the expense of farmers' rights.

The outgoing president said communities must be more involved in the early stages of planning for renewable projects.

"We must have respect for land holders, we need to have respect for the people who manage those lands," she said.

"The community is asking for better, the community wants more."

Ms Simson said one of the great disappointments of her tenure had been the Albanese government abandoning an agriculture visa, saying the sector was still struggling to attract workers.

She used the speech to reiterate the federation's position on the free trade agreement being negotiated with the European Union, which it has described as a "dud deal".

Ms Simson, who will hand over the reins on Wednesday, urged the government to keep negotiating.

"Make sure that we can get a better outcome for agriculture and a better outcome for both the EU customers and the Australian producers," she said.

"There is no sector in agriculture that is really getting any sort of a good deal in terms of the EU trade deal."


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs


Sunday, October 29, 2023

Homelessness: An analysis

I am going to be very politically incorrect below. The Left will accuse me of being heartless and uncaring. But their indifference to the ghastly attacks on innocent Israelis from Gaza tells us what a hollow pretence their "caring" is

Conservatives do occasionally note that homelessness is mainly an outcome of poor decisions and I am going to elaborate on that but I also want to go bit deeper than that

Being a good academic, I will first define my terms. By "homeless" I mean street sleepers and people who live in their cars. I probably should also include "couch surfers" who live temporarily with friends. There is something of a continuum between those three groups but there is sufficient similarity to support the generalizations I wish to make.

The basic problem with the homeless is poor decision-making. The letting agents tell us that the unhousable usually have drug and alcohol problems or are welfare-dependent single mothers. No experienced landlord would have anything to do with such people. Offering them accommodation would be asking for trouble. Such people would all have higher priorities than paying their rent

Women who get their legs up outside a committed relationship and without contraception are undoubtedly making a risky decision and one that sometimes goes very wrong. How selective you are about your partners is an important decision. Single mothers have undoubtedly got it wrong

So let us look at the other extreme: cautious people. If a man is frugal, is abstemious with alcohol, takes no recreational drugs and goes to university to get a useful qualification, he is most unlikely to end up homeless. Ditto for a woman who is careful with her contraception.

A major and important difference between the cautious and incautious groups is frugality. I have expanded on that previously

So I think I have covered the major ways in which decisions affect homelessness. So the next step is to ask WHY some people make very bad decisions

Sad to say, I think the two groups are actually born different, with impulsiveness and poor ability to think ahead being inborn in most of the homeless.

And IQ is perhaps the most important inborn difference of all. The people who go to university and the people who spend most of their money on beer and cigarettes are almost always going to be differentiated by IQ. A smart person can see when he is at a dead end and will find a way out of it.

So the homeless do deserve our pity and help. They are born unfortunate. They cannot help it. Whether it is incumbent on anyone to help them is another question, however. Governments sometimes attempt that task by providing "social" (welfare) housing but the cost of that ensures that it will only ever be a partial solution. There is no good alternative to self-help -- JR


Parliament votes for more fatherless children

Bettina Arndt

October 19 was a dark day in Australia’s social history after our Parliament voted for more fatherless children… Labor’s draconian family law bill became law, removing almost every word from previous legislation which promoted children’s rights to care from both parents after divorce. This brave new law sets aside many decades of international evidence showing it is harmful for children to grow up without dads.

For almost two decades Australia has been a world leader in encouraging separated parents to share decisions about raising their kids. That achievement dates back to John Howard’s path-breaking 2006 reforms promoting ‘equal shared parental responsibility’ which resulted in a major increase in care from dads, more shared care, better relations between parents, and less litigation.

The result was improved children’s well-being, according to UNSW research, and the reforms were a big hit with the public, ‘overwhelmingly supported by parents, legal professionals, and family relationship service professionals’, according to research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

That mighty legal reform, which had bipartisan support, has now been swept aside. According to the eminent former family law professor Patrick Parkinson, the new divorce laws strip ‘almost all references which encourage the meaningful involvement of both parents in relation to the child after separation’. That means dads will be cut out of their children’s lives, he warned.

Labor hustled the bill through Parliament last week as Australia was distracted by the referendum results, after cutting short the usual extensive scrutiny required for such a massive change.

Watch fiery Michaela Cash in the Senate exposing Labor’s unseemly haste to get these changes into law and their refusal to answer questions about why they chose this treacherous betrayal of fathers.

The process was fuelled by comments from Attorney General Mark Dreyfus, who I believe wrongly claimed the changes had the support of numerous previous inquiries.

In one example, the removal of the key ‘equal shared parental responsibility’ clause was done by claiming this deluded dads into thinking that they might just be entitled to equal time with their own kids. It’s true that various inquiries, including the Australian Law Reform Commission, had pointed out there was sometimes confusion, but they simply suggested changing the language, not tossing out the whole thing.

No committee suggested removing all mention of children’s right to know and be cared for by both parents, and their right to spend regular time with both parents and other significant people like grandparents, nor the provision that parenting plans should start by considering the option of equal or substantial time with both parents.

So how did they get away with it? For decades, feminist ideologues have been manipulating the family law system by claiming that all women and their children are at risk of attack by violent ex-partners. They’ve succeeded brilliantly in hushing up the key statistic that puts a lie to the claim that so many dads pose a risk to their children – namely that only 1.2 per cent of women are physically assaulted by their male partner or ex-parent each year in Australia, according to the most recent 2016 Personal Safety survey. Physical violence is blessedly rare.

Even though violence orders are commonplace for many of the tiny numbers (less than 5 per cent) of couples who actually appear before the Family Court, these families are not the norm. What matters most is the impact of family law legislation on decisions made about parenting by ordinary separating couples who don’t battle it out in court.

Now these couples are to be told the imperative is keeping children safe and that means putting care of children firmly back into female hands. Look at this press release from the Women’s Legal Services Australia, congratulating Attorney General Dreyfus on the bill, which was circulated within minutes of the vote going through.

‘We strongly support reform of the Family Law Act to make the law clearer and fairer, including the removal of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility to improve safety.

‘When violence and abuse are factors, courts will be able to deal with them more easily and reduce the number of children and mothers forced into dangerous situations.

‘Removing this dangerous provision will give the courts the freedom to focus on safety and the genuine best interests of children and families.’

It’s another superb victory for the feminists, one more achievement for their mighty domestic violence juggernaut, which already works a treat tilting the family law system to favour women. Currently, all it takes is one vague claim that violence could occur, requiring zero supportive evidence, to set in train a sequence of events starting with dad being removed from the home, denied contact with children and, if he’s lucky, paying big money to see his children in our draconian supervised contact services.

No wonder Australia has become one of the world leaders when it comes to men suffering false allegations. Look at this fascinating new YouGov survey, involving 9,432 people across 8 countries. Australia came out as the worst country, after India, when people were asked if they had been falsely accused of abuse.

The YouGov survey showed false accusations in Australia are more likely to be made as part of a child custody dispute than anywhere else in the world – they are 41 per cent of such allegations in this country. Overall, the survey showed 80 per cent of victims of false allegations in this country are male and almost a third (30 per cent) of people surveyed know a victim of false allegations made in the last year.

It was Julia Gillard’s feminist government that set the scene for this state of affairs when they removed the 2006 penalties for perjury and placed violence accusations front and centre of decision-making about sharing of care of children. Her government also greatly expanded the definition of domestic ‘violence’ to include emotional and psychological abuse, threatening behaviour, etc. – adding enormously to the list of families precluded from court-approved shared care.

Magistrates’ courts have been overwhelmed with false violence accusations, which some magistrates have acknowledged are being used to gain strategic advantage in child custody matters. A survey of 38 magistrates in Queensland found 74 per cent agreed restraining orders are often used for tactical purposes. Similarly, 90 per cent of 68 NSW magistrates agreed restraining orders are often sought as tactical devices in family law disputes, ‘serving to deprive former partners of contact with their children’.

In a national survey of over 2,500 respondents, more than half agreed that ‘women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case’.

People know this is happening – including police, who are starting to speak out about the enormous amount of their time consumed by false allegations. Two years ago, the Queensland Police Union made a submission to a family law inquiry pointing out that false allegations of domestic violence are sometimes used to gain advantage in family law disputes, with members of the police force sometimes finding themselves on the receiving end.

In some areas of Queensland, domestic violence takes up to 80 per cent of police time. Note that in NSW, domestic violence assaults make up only 4.8 per cent of major crimes but take up 50-70 per cent of police time.

That’s the current reality. But now, things are going to get far worse. Under the new Act, shared care is only to be considered ‘when it is safe to do so’, which means only a very brave judge would risk such an order if a mother claims to feel unsafe. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has also announced a new bill next year promising a greater share of the marital assets to victims of violence.

But getting the current bill through Parliament proved a breeze for the government. These momentous changes sailed through the lower house. Not a single word was spoken by MPs about false allegations. It was up to Pauline Hanson in the Senate to acknowledge the elephant in the room. She also introduced an amendment to reinstate the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, which naturally failed.

The Opposition introduced some pretty feeble amendments, trying unsuccessfully to reintroduce some of the parenting sections of the bill. There were fine speeches warning about the impact of the bill on fathers and children by a number of key Senators, including Alex Antic, Matt Canavan, Linda Reynolds, Gerard Rennick, and Paul Scarr. And Michaela Cash did a great job dissecting key faults in the bill – do watch here to see how Labor utterly fails to justify what they are doing.

Yet, in the end, they sold us out. When it came to a vote, the bill went through, with the Greens, Pocock, and Jacqui Lambie’s group, all happily supporting Labor. Almost all the Opposition Senators abstained and then Michaela Cash turned around and voted for it.

Only three people voted against the legislation: Hanson and her One Nation colleague, Malcolm Roberts, along with United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet.

The Opposition may well claim they’ll stand up and be counted when they get back in power – they just need to avoid attracting feminist wrath until then. But should we trust them after the endless kowtowing to the women’s lobby?

What’s really frightening is how effectively the feminists shut down any proper public discussion of this critical bill, which I would argue is one of the most critical social changes imposed on us for many decades.

People need to know what’s happened here. These changes to the law will bring poorer outcomes for children, a fresh flood of new accusations against fathers, more conflict between divorced parents, a huge surge in litigation as men pay out to try to see their children, and more suicides for men as they realise that their chances of a fair hearing in an already biased court system will now be further reduced. All bad news, unless you are a feminist.


Anti-Semitism at the ABC

The national broadcaster has not had a good war in Israel but on Tuesday, managing director David Anderson emerged defiant from his foxhole to defend his troops.

Anderson appeared before a Senate Estimates hearing and confirmed that the ABC had finally launched an investigation into the conduct of Tom Joyner, its Middle East correspondent who created an international media scandal when he callously dismissed eyewitness reports that Israeli babies had been beheaded in a text to hundreds of journalists in Israel. He claimed ‘the story about the babies is bullsh-t’.

Anderson told Liberal Senator Hollie Hughes that Joyner was just ‘trying to do what journalists were doing… trying to verify what sources could back up’ and he was ‘quite remorseful and apologetic for the words that he used’.

No, that’s not what Joyner did. He falsely claimed, with zero evidence, that Israeli first responders were lying about the murder of Israeli babies and equally erroneously claimed there had been no confirmation of their accounts. In fact, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office had confirmed the numerous eyewitness testimonies.

If Joyner wanted more evidence he could have contacted Dr Chen Kugel, the head of Israel’s National Center for Forensic Medicine, which is painstakingly identifying the victims. Dr Kugel has confirmed that numerous victims, including babies, were decapitated. Rather than establish the facts, Joyner assumed Israeli eyewitnesses were lying even though Hamas had just assaulted, butchered, or abducted thousands of Israelis and other civilians in the most brutal act of terror in the history of the Jewish state.

As one journalist asked Joyner, ‘Why are you picking this hill to be humiliated on?’ Why indeed?

Perhaps because the whole ABC is so steeped in anti-Semitism that it seemed natural to him to assume Israeli eyewitnesses to a national tragedy were ‘bullsh-ttng’.

You would think that having demonstrated an appalling lack of professionalism in such a senior role, Joyner would be sacked or at least sent home. But no, he was given a holiday and continues as a Middle East correspondent.

Why not? The ABC seems to have no problem with political reporter Nour Haydar retweeting a post complaining about Palestinians in Australia ‘being policed for their language, protests’ after Hamas supporters chanted ‘Gas the Jews’, and claiming that the Australian Jewish Association calling for the destruction of Hamas was openly calling for ‘genocide’. Who does she work for asked one dismayed Australian whose taxes pay her salary – the ABC or Al Jazeera?

Anderson also stood by the decision to give a national platform in prime time on 7.30 to Hamas’s head of international relations Dr Basem Naim even though Hamas is a listed terrorist organisation that had just engaged in an appalling act of terror.

Naim used the opportunity to lie through his teeth claiming that Hamas never intended to target civilians or take them hostage. He expects us to assume that the killing of at least 1,400 Israelis and other civilians, the injuring of 5,431 and the seizure of more than 200 hostages was unintentional but the terrorists were so proud of their accidental atrocities that they they posted them on Facebook.

Incredibly, Anderson claimed that it was ‘editorially justified’ to interview Naim ‘to challenge’ Hamas’s claims. Yet the article on the ABC website that reports the interview doesn’t challenge the Hamas narrative, it reads like an apologia.

According to Naim, ‘the chief commander of the Al Qassem Brigade, who initiated the operation… gave clear instructions not to target… (or) harm civilians’ and as if by accident, ‘in the middle of the confrontation, there was some civilians’. Naim claims, ‘We haven’t planned at any moment to take any civilian hostages. The plan was to take on the fight against soldiers and to take some soldiers as hostages’. He says Hamas is taking care of the civilian hostages, ‘based on our moral obligations’ and will release them ‘the moment the aggression is stopped’. He defends Hamas’s ‘instruction to civilians’ to remain in the conflict zone in Northern Gaza despite Israel warning them to go, claiming it is ‘too dangerous for civilians to leave and that for Palestinians, quitting their homes now would be a repeat of the “catastrophe” of 1948’.

Finally, he claims Hamas’s atrocities are ‘an act of defence’ and blames them on Israel claiming, ‘We are occupied people, we are defending our existence’.

This is a pack of obscene lies. Hamas filmed terrorists using hang-gliders to land in the middle of a dance party where they slaughtered hundreds of young people and took dozens hostage. Terrorists filmed themselves rampaging through kibbutzes, burning whole families alive, shooting children as they cowered under tables and posted the evidence on social media.

None of this is in the ABC article. Nor the fact that the Hamas charter commits not just to destroying the state of Israel but to murdering every Jew on the planet. Not once does it mention that Gaza is not occupied but self-governing and that Hamas came to power in a bloody coup in which hundreds of Palestinians were killed and political rivals were thrown off the tops of the tallest buildings. There is no mention of the thousands of rockets that have been launched from Gaza into Israel year after year targeting civilian areas.

Anderson said in Senate Estimates that he does not think that the article is ‘legitimising terrorism’ or that ‘the ABC is anti-Semitic in any way’. It’s presumably fair and balanced that the ABC reports that Hamas is taking good care of civilian hostages that they captured by chance while the Israelis are lying about beheaded babies.

It’s all part of Western media bias in which once respectable papers such as the New York Times rushed to believe Hamas’s version of events which blamed Israel for catastrophic damage to the al-Ahli hospital in northern Gaza when in fact the damage was done by a rocket launched by Palestinian Islamic Jihad which crashed into the car park of the hospital.

Even a features writer for New York Magazine Intelligencer who is critical of the Left’s failure to condemn Hamas was so keen not to exaggerate Hamas’s barbarism that he criticised his own article writing it was an ‘overstatement’ to say that ‘babies were beheaded’ and he ‘should have said that the report established that babies were found headless, a fact that lends plausibility to claims of beheading, but which does not prove them’.

This is what the West has come to: its scribes parse the fate of headless Jewish babies, while the barbarians rally in the streets and clamour at the gates.


Chasing idiocy: how subsidies power our energy price hikes

If we looked at the picture for Australia in the mid-90s, the electricity industry was massively overstaffed and the gas industry was dissipating the wealth that Exxon had discovered in Bass Strait.

In the case of electricity, Victoria led the way, and one simple figure illustrates the benefits brought about by privatisation and the introduction of competition. Generation Victoria was the monopoly supplier. Prior to reforms, which were ironically initiated by socialist Premier Joan Kirner, it employed 25,000 people; by the early 2000s, the numbers employed, including consultants and contractors, were under 3,000. At the same time the output, in terms of the power stations’ availabilities to run, had lifted from somewhere in the mid-70 per cent range to the mid-90s.

So, we had over 20,000 surplus personnel who only gummed up the work. Similar savings can be found in the distribution and transmission businesses, albeit to a lesser degree.

Australia was largely traversing the path that had been trailblazed by Margaret Thatcher’s administration in the UK and, less systematically in the US, where The Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland network (PJM) showed the way in which independent generator businesses could compete while cooperating thereby bringing about lower prices with considerable incentives to invest where investment would be profitable.

Within six or seven years of initiating the reforms, Australia had achieved what was probably the lowest electricity prices in the world and an electricity system, which was no longer plagued with downtime, strikes, and blackouts. We saw new investment responding to commercial, not political, incentives.

This was done as a result of profits-oriented businesses, in retail as well as generation – not all of them privately owned – competing for business within a known framework of rules. These as the very conditions under which capitalism generally has prevailed and brought the wealth of nations we enjoy today.

But the situation in the energy industry was always precarious. Even while the reforms were taking place, Victorian Treasurer Alan Stockdale felt obliged to introduce regulatory arrangements for pricing and for ombudsman arrangements that went far beyond those seen in other industries.

At the start of the 21st Century, and for the next few years, electricity prices (and to a lesser degree gas, having fallen immediately after the reforms), were increasing more or less in line with inflation.

But the germs of the present disaster were already starting to infect the industry – and the economy as a whole.

Spurred on by claims that carbon dioxide emissions were causing global warming, and a fantasy that wind and solar energy would soon become cheaper than ‘dinosaur’ coal and gas and supposedly inherently dangerous nuclear, the first tentative steps were taken to favour renewable industries. Amusingly, we see agencies like CSIRO and others claiming even more stridently that wind and solar is cheaper and – often within the same sentence – adding that they therefore need to continue receiving the subsidies they enjoy.

In response to climate scares and skilful lobbying, John Howard introduced requirements for ‘2 per cent of additional energy’ to be supplied by wind and solar. The method of arranging, for this was through the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) whereby energy certificates, which provided a subsidy to wind and solar, equivalent in those days to about $30 per MWh (providing a 70 per cent premium on the commercial market price).

John Howard has since said that this 2 per cent additional energy policy was his greatest political error. He sought to cap the level of support and appointed an inquiry, chaired by former Senator Tamblyn, to advise on this. As is often the case, the inquiry was captured by the bureaucrats and recommended the expansion of the scheme from what had been quantified at 9,500 GWh to 16,000 GWh. To his credit, Howard rejected this but was quickly replaced by Australia’s new economic and political saviour, Kevin Rudd.

Under Rudd/Gillard, the MRET scheme and its roof-top sister scheme went into break-neck expansion until the Abbott victory in 2013. Abbott wanted to wind back the scheme but, fearing radical advice and conscious of political opposition to this, appointed the sensible Dick Warburton to head the inquiry, and the best he felt he could do was to cap the scheme.

So the subsidies have continued. They have transformed what was a supply comprising 85 per cent coal 10 per cent hydro and 5 per cent gas to the present output of 60 per cent coal 25 per cent solar/wind and 15 per cent hydro and gas. The present government seeks to eliminate coal altogether and, ostensibly at least, the Opposition is not far behind.

In terms of subsidies, the PC has put their effect as follows

In annualised dollar terms, the energy subsidies to renewables, the flip side of which is a tax-type penalty on fossil fuels come to over $9,800 (million):


RERT, FCAS and system security $400

Clean Energy Regulator $750

Expansion of transmission $510

CEFC $1,333

ARENA $100

Snowy 2 $1,333

State schemes $1,410

The subsidies do far more damage than a simple transfer of money from one party to another. Because wind is subsidised (and is favoured by the market operator’s dispatch algorithm that gives it preferred access), it can bid into the market at anything above negative $40-50 per MWh. This not only displaces coal but forces up its costs since the generators are capital-intensive and designed to operate for much of the day but are being forced to fill in when the wind/sun is not producing.

As a result, we see prices forced down as the coal generators meet the market pressures from wind and solar that will seek to run at anything over its (subsidised) break-even of about $50 per MWh. Prices then shoot up when those distorted market pressures add costs (by forcing the capital-intensive coal plant to operate part-time) and at the same time squeeze prices. That process forces a facility to close once a new lick of new capital is required to supply – not at the steady rate of the original design – but as a filler for when lack of wind and sun prevent intermittent renewables from generating. The pattern can be observed in prices depicted below.

This year’s closure of Liddell brought what the Australian Financial Review called a revelation, ‘Had Liddell’s capacity still been available, prices would have been lower.’ Chanticleer noted, that the average realised wholesale price increased 32 per cent in NSW, 27 per cent in Victoria, 100 per cent in SA and 14 per cent in Queensland.

The pressures on electricity have been increased by regulatory constraints on new developments and tax increases (called royalty increases) on coal and gas. For gas, Australia now has shortages due to regulatory restrictions that largely outlaw developments in all eastern states other than Queensland.

The outcome has seen Australia being transformed from its former position of enjoying very low-cost energy supply. Australian electricity prices are now twice those of China, Russia and Vietnam and much dearer than other nations following us down the climate energy wormhole, like Canada, the US, and Korea.

One solution according to our politicians and those who advise them is to re-nationalise the industry and double up on the subsidies to renewables.

Former Premier Andrews set renationalisation in train for Victoria. Fortunately, his government would be unable to raise sufficient funds to implement this.

The latest subsidy expansion is the Safeguard Mechanism but the Prime Minister has foreshadowed a new array of subsidies and regulatory impediments. And hydrogen is a popular elixir to fix the system but one that cannot conceivably work if only because it takes more energy to produce than if provides.

The further we go along this path of replacing coal with intermittent solar and wind supplies, the more expensive the firming operation becomes. With a 100 per cent renewables supply and no transmission constraints, Global Roam has put the firming costs as the equivalent of 25 Snowy 2’s or 70,000 Hornsdale batteries which would cost some $6 trillion and, even if amortised over a 15-year period would require one-third of annual GDP – and that is just for the batteries. Even larger costs are estimated by others like Francis Menton, who estimates that just to keep the lights on would require a backup of 25 days supply with 100 per cent wind supply. Pumped hydro might have a firming role alongside batteries but it cannot be a major one given Australia’s limited river flows.

One solution proposed by the Opposition is to adopt nuclear but this – at the present time – is nowhere near as economical for Australia as coal. It is even less so in the way Peter Dutton expressed it – as an adjunct and firming mechanism for renewables, a role that nuclear (like coal), with its high fixed costs, is intrinsically ill-placed to perform.

Of course, the real solution is that adopted by China, India, and others

But for the time being Prime Minister Albanese, reeling from the Voice debate, is preparing for a redoubled support for renewable energy. In doing so he is tacitly supported by the finance industry that is cowering from the ‘global boiling’ incandescents and refusing to finance energy sources other than those renewables requiring government subsidies. We therefore, at the very least, face a considerable increase in national misery before sensible energy economic policies are restored.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs


Thursday, October 26, 2023

First peoples?

There has been a lot of indecision in recent years about what to call those people whom for many decades we have called "Aborigines". That word now seems to be taboo. "Indigenous" is a favourite replacement but the Canadian practice is increasingly creeping in. Canadians say "First Nations" for the early inhabitants of their country.

Using "first Nations" for early inhabitants of Australia is a however a substantial misfire. The many pre-white tribes of Australia had few of the characteristics of nations except perhaps informally understood borders. Making "nations" out of hundreds of tribes is quite a stretch. There was certainly no language or DNA common to them all and not much that we would recognize as governing bodies or a defence department.

Perhaps for that reason the angry article below refers to "first peoples" instead, a more defensible usage.

But both usages founder on the claim that the pre-white inhabitants of Australia were in any sense "first". They were not. It enrages the Left for anybody to mention it but it is well documented that the original inhabitants of what we now call Australia were a race of pygmies. And the pygmies concerned are far from a lost tribe. Some of them still survive in areas of the Atherton Tableland.

One of them walked right past me in 2004 as I was sitting in an open-air cafe in Kuranda. He was black but was only about 4'6" tall, a height commonly given for the Australian pygmies in early documents. There certainly are still some very short blacks in the mountainous areas behind Cairns

In the early days, anthropologists and explorers took photos of the pygmies which showed them as being about 4.6" (1.3 meters) tall

There is a long article by the irreverent historian Keith Windschuttle which gives the full story. See

There were quite a lot of reports of contact with pygmies throughout the 20th century. See:

There have been many attempts from the Left to debunk the story that there were a race of pygmies in Australia but have a look below and you will see one of them, 3"7" tall and still alive when the picture was taken by a news photographer in 2007.

She is pretty substantial to be a "myth". There is an article about her reprinted below

It’s a measure of the confidence assimilationists now feel, not to mention their profound indecency, that they’ve wasted no time pushing to start rolling back what few gains have been made on Indigenous policy.

Tony Abbott immediately demanded that Indigenous flags no longer be flown and acknowledgements of Indigenous people be abandoned at official events — signs of separatism, he says. If even those most basic acknowledgements that First Peoples exist are now to be erased, then we are indeed seeing full-blown separatism. The LNP in Queensland abandoned support for a treaty process in that state. Peter Dutton, in the words of one of his own MPs, sought to “weaponise” claims of child abuse within Indigenous communities.

The mainstream media also wasted no time in trying to fit the result into a narrative that carefully avoided the core issues of the referendum. The Australian Financial Review echoed the argument of The Australian that it was all Anthony Albanese’s fault for his “failure to genuinely consult with Mr Dutton to try to secure bi-partisan support for the Voice,” arguing that it was down to Albanese’s “hubris”.

This is a self-serving lie that gets everyone — Dutton, the No campaign, racists, the media — off the hook. There is literally no referendum proposal that Dutton would have supported, as his goal was to damage Labor, not address the substance of either recognition or closing the gap. The AFR goes on to complain that Albanese has ruled out “pursuing other forms of constitutional recognition or legislating for an Indigenous advisory body”.
Let’s coin a name for this fiction: how about the White Man’s Recognition Myth? It’s one many No supporters, including Abbott and Dutton, cling to — that if only they’d been asked to support simple recognition without a Voice, they’d have backed it.

White Man’s Recognition found a full flowering in an extraordinary column by David Crowe last week. Normally the doyen of both-sidesist press gallery commentary, Crowe came alive during the campaign to lash the No campaign but lamented last Thursday “a Yes vote is only possible for leaders who compromise more than they would like. This is true for Indigenous leaders as much as party leaders. As late as June this year, there was a pathway to success for recognition without the Voice, something Dutton says he supports.”

That is, the failure of the referendum is on First Peoples and their inability to compromise, their unwillingness to accept a token White Man’s Recognition, their insistence that recognition actually be meaningful and involve a two-way interaction, not imposed on them like so much else has been imposed on them for more than two centuries.

Stop complaining, accept what you’re given, abandon any agency, it’s non-Indigenous people who’ve done all the compromising, why won’t you? Being recognised as actually existing should be enough. It’s not just Albanese, evidently, who is afflicted with hubris.

It shouldn’t need to be said, but after the ferocious and resentful dismissal of genuine recognition by non-Indigenous Australia, no non-Indigenous person is in a position to lecture First Peoples about what they should have done differently in order to please us.

It is non-Indigenous people who have killed off recognition and reconciliation in favour of maintaining a white fantasy in an occupied country. The next steps, whatever they are, must come from First Peoples. And if those steps are away from the rest of us, we’ve only ourselves to blame.


Police truth-teller condemned

Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers has responded to “vile” criticism directed at him from a senior minister after he said truth telling and treaty would give Indigenous people a free pass to commit crime.

The powerful union boss, who declared First Nations people were over represented in crime statistics, insisted he was sharing the views others were “too frightened” to share.

Those comments were slammed as “divisive and unhelpful” by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk.

Government ministers on Wednesday lined up to distance themselves from the union boss’s claim that its Path to Treaty was a feel-good exercise that was anti-police.

Ms Palaszczuk said Mr Leavers’ comments about Indigenous people, published by The Courier-Mail, were wrong.

“Let me say I disagree with the comments the QPU president has said,” she said.

Mr Leavers doubled down on his comments on Wednesday, declaring he was saying the things “people want to”.

“There’s been Cabinet ministers have a go at me but that’s part of life, that’s water off a duck’s back to me, I’m used to that,” he said.

“A lot of people want to say things, but they are too frightened to because you’ve seen the vile and the personal attacks come my way today.

“The people I represent are on the front line. “Not like the latte sippers in inner Brisbane who’ve never been to communities and see the violence and the mayhem and the destruction of lives that takes place.”

Transport Minister Mark Bailey took aim at Mr Leavers, declaring his “ignorant and factually wrong diatribe is an embarrassment to the Queensland Police Union”.

“He should be working on rectifying the identified racism, misogyny and sexism in the force to make it an inclusive and lawful workplace,” Mr Bailey said.

Mr Leavers slammed the minister’s “vile” response. “I don’t take anything Mark Bailey says takes seriously at all,” the union boss said.

Mr Bailey’s input on the issue, particularly his comment about fixing problems within the Queensland Police Service, forced Ms Palaszczuk to declare the “minister is not anti-police”.

Queensland Human Rights Commissioner Scott McDougall said Mr Leavers comments would divert energy from work to close the gap.

“In the aftermath of a referendum debate which exposed Queensland’s First Nations communities to harmful levels of racist discourse, it is reprehensible to create further harm with such divisive and inflammatory language,” he said.


The Greens get one thing right

The Greens candidate for Brisbane lord mayor, Jonathan Sriranganathan, says the party will go to next year’s election opposing the city’s 2032 Olympic Games unless organisers abandon plans for a $2.7bn redevelopment of the Gabba stadium.

Sriranganathan’s high-profile campaign seeks to build upon the Greens’ recent success in Brisbane, including capturing three inner-city seats at the last federal election.

He said the Greens “don’t want to be blockers” but would refuse to support the Olympics unless the plan for the Gabba, including the relocation of a primary school and the resumption of homes, was changed.

“The state government doesn’t have the operational capacity to deliver an Olympics without the support of the council,” Sriranganathan said.

“The Brisbane City Council does have a lot of leverage on this issue. The mayor of Brisbane is a signatory to the Olympics contracts and agreements. They’re not contingent on using the Gabba … [it] was not part of the Olympics bid.”

The Greens now represent the local, state and federal electorates covering Woolloongabba, which is home to the Gabba.

Sriranganathan said the Gabba redevelopment proposal was unpopular “right across” the city, including in the outer suburbs.

“We’ve been hearing from people who say it’s not a good use of money or construction resources,” he said.

“The further out you go, the more frustration there is that the investment from the Olympics isn’t flowing evenly across south-east Queensland.

“It’s hard to gauge how much support there is for the Olympics but … a lot of people draw a clear line between whether they support the Olympics and the Gabba proposal.”

The issue also helps the Greens establish clear battle lines against both Labor and the Liberal National party, in a campaign that will focus heavily on concerns about housing and the delivery of basic services. Last week the LNP-led council announced a 10% budget cut, scrapping promised city projects and sparking concern about job cuts.

“Both the major parties are continually telling us they don’t have the money and resources to do everything, and hard choices need to be made,” Sriranganathan said.

“They’re simultaneously saying we have money for this stadium, but we don’t have money for public housing or schools, and that is losing them votes across the city.”

The Gabba redevelopment has already been controversial, with the federal government rejecting Queensland’s request for commonwealth funding. In August, Australian Olympic Committee officials told a Senate hearing that the deal to stage the games in Brisbane was not contingent on the use of the Gabba.

The redevelopment plan would require the relocation of the East Brisbane state school, which neighbours the existing Brisbane Cricket Ground. Kath Angus, the Greens’ mayoral candidate in 2020 and a parent of children at the school, is running for the party in the neighbouring ward of Coorparoo. It is one of about a dozen council wards where the Greens believe they will be competitive.

Angus said the major parties were “more interested in a vanity project than caring for our school kids”.

“Residents deserve so much more from the council than they are getting right now – budget cuts, services being slashed, congested streets and handouts to wealthy property developers.”


Coming soon: new tax to hurt property investors, farmers

An unprecedented move by the Albanese government to tax paper gains in superannuation is prompting consternation across the sector, where property investors and farmers look likely to be the first targets of the planned move.

After reviewing the draft legislation on the new extra 15 per cent tax to be applied on superfund earnings above $3m, industry leaders appear considerably more upset with the method of applying the new tax than the actual imposition of a higher tax bill.

Natasha Panagis, the head of superannuation and financial services at the Institute of Financial Professionals Australia, says no other country in the world taxes unrealised capital gains.

It seems very few in super circles had anticipated investors could be taxed upfront for profits that might never be realised.

The recently released draft legislation for super changes from Treasury also confirmed that the tax on gains would be charged annually.

“The problem is that super is not like any other business, and the new tax is aimed at individuals -but an individual may not live long enough to ever access the offsets,” said Ms Panagis.

The prospect of tax losses marooned indefinitely inside the tax office is just one of a range of potential outcomes of the new tax that advisers say will hit investors who may have little idea of what is coming down the line.

Industry experts, such as Peter Burgess at the Self Managed Super Funds Association, suggests investors who have most of their money inside ‘illiquid assets’ such as farmers or property investors are among the most exposed.

The new tax will also hit anyone who borrowed funds to finance their retirement because it will be applied on a person’s total super balance – that balance includes borrowed funds.

Once the new tax is introduced in 2025 it will work in a manner similar to the so-called Division 293 tax today – that is, it will be applied immediately and directly on an individual. Division 293 applies where you have to refund some of the tax concessions you received on super contributions because your annual income went over $250,000.

The new extra super tax will be called Division 296.

Also in common with the existing Division 293 tax, the draft legislation says individuals would have the option of paying their extra super tax liability by either releasing amounts from their superannuation or using amounts outside the superannuation system.

Advisers suggest taxing unrealised gains flouts all basic tax principles and may trap investors who only temporarily transcend the $3m ‘cap’ such as those who might have struck it lucky in a small cap share which soars briefly before coming back to earth with a thud.

Separately, advisers warn that valuations among unlisted assets will be under review in relation to the tax along with unit prices at big super funds.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs